Re: [Vo]:Fundamentals of charge
On 22.05.2023 18:50, bobcook39...@hotmail.com wrote: Furthermore it is broadly considered that the potential energy equals the kinetic energy of the system This does not even hold for planetary systems/orbits. It's a beginners error... On an elliptic orbit trajectory there are just two points (even this is simplified due to precision/nutation) where this E-kin = E-pot holds. It's an average only! J.W. -- Jürg Wyttenbach Bifangstr. 22 8910 Affoltern am Albis +41 44 760 14 18 +41 79 246 36 06
Re: [Vo]:Fundamentals of charge
How is the Casimir effect consistent? On Mon, May 22, 2023, 12:50 PM bobcook39...@hotmail.com < bobcook39...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > The 2 laws of thermodynamics are largely taught in coilleges and > universities around the world. > > > > > > They are: > > > >1. Conservation of energy in all interactions of matter within the >boundaries of a adiabatic system; >2. Entropy (a measure of disorder, energy density special >homogeneity) in an adiabatic closed system of matter > > > > > > The total energy of a closed system consists of potential energy > associated with fields and kinetic in local clumps of matter. Furthermore > it is broadly considered that the potential energy equals the kinetic > energy of the system and , if the system is adiabatic and stable, the > kinetic must be rotational (spin) with quantized angular momentum. > > There is no free energy with corresponding LINEAR MOMENTUM in a stable > system. > > > > The theory of quantum mechanics post dates the theory thermodynamics , but > is considered consistent IMHO. > > > > > > Bob Cook > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *From: *Jürg Wyttenbach > *Sent: *Friday, May 19, 2023 2:48 PM > *To: *vortex-l@eskimo.com > *Subject: *Re: [Vo]:Fundamentals of charge > > > > Stefan, > > All old models are ideals and simplifications. Nature is highly non > linear and you certainly cannot increase the angular momentum by n*h. > The reason is that after adding a quantum of energy the next resonance > is slightly larger. So it looks like h(1+1)*(1+dh)^n... > > In mechanics you can get n for macroscopic bodies only under very > special conditions... > > J.W. > > On 19.05.2023 21:19, Stefan Israelsson Tampe wrote: > > http://itampe.com/on-the-fundamentals-of-charge.html > > > > I must say that my intuition and back of the envelope analysis seem to > > pan out very nicely when I start to investigate math more seriously. > > It all fit very well, actually a very satisfying result and this will > > make the foundations of Mills GUTCP very understandable. I can't help > > but think that this is a 1900 approach to superstrings ... > > -- > Jürg Wyttenbach > Bifangstr. 22 > 8910 Affoltern am Albis > > +41 44 760 14 18 > +41 79 246 36 06 > > >
RE: [Vo]:Fundamentals of charge
The 2 laws of thermodynamics are largely taught in coilleges and universities around the world. They are: 1. Conservation of energy in all interactions of matter within the boundaries of a adiabatic system; 2. Entropy (a measure of disorder, energy density special homogeneity) in an adiabatic closed system of matter The total energy of a closed system consists of potential energy associated with fields and kinetic in local clumps of matter. Furthermore it is broadly considered that the potential energy equals the kinetic energy of the system and , if the system is adiabatic and stable, the kinetic must be rotational (spin) with quantized angular momentum. There is no free energy with corresponding LINEAR MOMENTUM in a stable system. The theory of quantum mechanics post dates the theory thermodynamics , but is considered consistent IMHO. Bob Cook From: Jürg Wyttenbach<mailto:ju...@datamart.ch> Sent: Friday, May 19, 2023 2:48 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Fundamentals of charge Stefan, All old models are ideals and simplifications. Nature is highly non linear and you certainly cannot increase the angular momentum by n*h. The reason is that after adding a quantum of energy the next resonance is slightly larger. So it looks like h(1+1)*(1+dh)^n... In mechanics you can get n for macroscopic bodies only under very special conditions... J.W. On 19.05.2023 21:19, Stefan Israelsson Tampe wrote: > http://itampe.com/on-the-fundamentals-of-charge.html > > I must say that my intuition and back of the envelope analysis seem to > pan out very nicely when I start to investigate math more seriously. > It all fit very well, actually a very satisfying result and this will > make the foundations of Mills GUTCP very understandable. I can't help > but think that this is a 1900 approach to superstrings ... -- Jürg Wyttenbach Bifangstr. 22 8910 Affoltern am Albis +41 44 760 14 18 +41 79 246 36 06
Re: [Vo]:Fundamentals of charge
You generally start at the first approximation. The approach I do is very sound as I make sure the models are lorentz invariant. The calculations are very satisfactory and explains a lot of why's that one may have. Although the basic block is simple, as you construct the bigger structures, complications arise that hide the simple structure and the observations we see on the macroscopic level, with their complexite will follow. You use geometry to answer many questions. As things in this model do not interact unless certain conditions are met you can overlay and in the end get higher dimensional freedoms and I fully expect that you will be able to connect your findings with certain geometrical constructs in 3D. On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 11:48 PM Jürg Wyttenbach wrote: > Stefan, > > All old models are ideals and simplifications. Nature is highly non > linear and you certainly cannot increase the angular momentum by n*h. > The reason is that after adding a quantum of energy the next resonance > is slightly larger. So it looks like h(1+1)*(1+dh)^n... > > In mechanics you can get n for macroscopic bodies only under very > special conditions... > > J.W. > > On 19.05.2023 21:19, Stefan Israelsson Tampe wrote: > > http://itampe.com/on-the-fundamentals-of-charge.html > > > > I must say that my intuition and back of the envelope analysis seem to > > pan out very nicely when I start to investigate math more seriously. > > It all fit very well, actually a very satisfying result and this will > > make the foundations of Mills GUTCP very understandable. I can't help > > but think that this is a 1900 approach to superstrings ... > > -- > Jürg Wyttenbach > Bifangstr. 22 > 8910 Affoltern am Albis > > +41 44 760 14 18 > +41 79 246 36 06 > >
Re: [Vo]:Fundamentals of charge
Stefan, All old models are ideals and simplifications. Nature is highly non linear and you certainly cannot increase the angular momentum by n*h. The reason is that after adding a quantum of energy the next resonance is slightly larger. So it looks like h(1+1)*(1+dh)^n... In mechanics you can get n for macroscopic bodies only under very special conditions... J.W. On 19.05.2023 21:19, Stefan Israelsson Tampe wrote: http://itampe.com/on-the-fundamentals-of-charge.html I must say that my intuition and back of the envelope analysis seem to pan out very nicely when I start to investigate math more seriously. It all fit very well, actually a very satisfying result and this will make the foundations of Mills GUTCP very understandable. I can't help but think that this is a 1900 approach to superstrings ... -- Jürg Wyttenbach Bifangstr. 22 8910 Affoltern am Albis +41 44 760 14 18 +41 79 246 36 06
